PC Gamer - Misogyny & Video Gamers

In some old games selecting a female character only meant:

INT:= INT +1
STR:= STR -1

So in my parties I often used a female elf as a mage. No big deal and not discriminating in my book.

In games with only one main character I often select a female character in my second play-through.

I enjoyed these games with female protagonists: Venetica, The Longest Journey series, Heroine's Quest: The Herald of Ragnarok, Memoria, Beyond Good & Evil … and many more.

BTW: There are many games with female protagonists -> list.

INT:= INT +1
STR:= STR -1

In what game did female mean +1 INT?

I've never heard about that - and that's discrimination.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Really? If a male wants to play a FPS or RPG, there are loads of options available and the majority of them (like my faves Gothic & Risen) exist in a male-centric world, so being a male in that environment is simple enough. If a woman wants to play, she has signed up to play games as a man, in a world where women are 'eye candy'.

Nah.. you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm talking about when there's a choice.

*Edit* Like DArtagnan said.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In what game did female mean +1 INT?

I've never heard about that - and that's discrimination.

Maybe HiddenX meant "intuition" and not intelligence? I don't know but as far back as I can remember, in some rare games selecting a female meant maybe a bonus to charisma and a malus to strength. I haven't ever experienced or seen a game with a bonus to intelligence either.

Originally Posted by txa1265
In games like Metroid it really didn't matter the gender, but with No One Lives Forever you were clearly playing a female.

And let's be very clear - NOLF 1&2 are two of the best shooters ever made, from mechanics to design to narrative and so on … yet they were overlooked in sales in spite of getting 90+ reviews everywhere and constantly coming up in 'best games you aren't playing' articles …

Mass Effect, a multi-million copy seller for each iteration, has collected statistics and only 18% of gamers chose female Shepherd. I have played as both genders, and found the writing actually did a good job of handling it.

And the reality is there are so few female-centric action, shooter and RPG games that the data set is so small we can't begin to speak definitively on what any of this means, if anything.

Speaking personally, I don't specifically remember when I started choosing to play females equally to males, but one reason was to test writing - Arcanum has loads of problems for female players where things are just not handled correctly. They are just not finished, so you get called Sir or 'he' and so on … and there is other stuff I can't remember. Vampire Bloodlines is better but not without mistake. KotOR is definitely solid in that regard. Most action games (Jedi Academy comes to mind) it really doesn't matter).

All these considerations stand on story.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In what world are women not eye candy?

They can be other things in gaming and other places, but if you think men don't enjoy looking at beautiful women - you're being silly.

And players playing video games look at women? How do they manage that?

Originally Posted by lostforever
I So why are we expecting FPS to have female characters?

And why not? Except for FPS tied with story, the avatar in a FPS only conveys the gameplay. Can find FPS in which the avatar is a robot so what? How many robots play FPS, any number about that?

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Maybe HiddenX meant "intuition" and not intelligence? I don't know but as far back as I can remember, in some rare games selecting a female meant maybe a bonus to charisma and a malus to strength. I haven't ever experienced or seen a game with a bonus to intelligence either.

Well, AFAIK, there's no research establishing women are more intuitive either.

Personally, I would go along with charisma simply because men are more easily affected by female visual appearance than the other way around.

Also, having an "empathy" stat boost for women would be ok as well, as I tend to find women more directly in contact with their emotions - where many men have this filter in place, so they can deal with conflict easier.

Ugh … sorry, I don't have the time to educate you on the history of women in technology. Suffice to say that you are incorrect in many assumptions, show real tone-deafness in any sort of understanding of issues women face, and continue to make some fairly sexist statements about the role of women in the world.

Fine, you win - everything is fine in this utopian world where women have realized their role as non-gaming eye-candy there to please you …

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In what game did female mean +1 INT?

I've never heard about that - and that's discrimination.

Any assertion that women are anything of substance is obviously incorrect as it challenges your poor self-esteem.

Sure, you'll give them 'charisma' because you swoon over tits and ass, but no way intelligence …

Wow … thanks for proving the point of this entire thread.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Ugh … sorry, I don't have the time to educate you on the history of women in technology. Suffice to say that you are incorrect in many assumptions, show real tone-deafness in any sort of understanding of issues women face, and continue to make some fairly sexist statements about the role of women in the world.

Fine, you win - everything is fine in this utopian world where women have realized their role as non-gaming eye-candy there to please you …

Unfortunately, and you know this, there's no way to be convincing if you can't back up your claims with something rational.

As is common with you, you're too emotionally invested to think about this with a rational and cool head.

That's too bad, as you're clearly a smart person with a measure of insight that could be of use to others.

But you're blindsided by the unfair treatment of women - and you can't seem to separate injustice from intent.

That's your choice, obviously, but you're not going to be of much use in an exchange until you calm down and present your arguments in a rational manner.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Any assertion that women are anything of substance is obviously incorrect as it challenges your poor self-esteem.

Sure, you'll give them 'charisma' because you swoon over tits and ass, but no way intelligence …

Wow … thanks for proving the point of this entire thread.

If your previous post didn't underpin my point about being irrationally invested - then this surely does.

I don't "give" anyone anything they shouldn't have. Do they HAVE to be superior just because you'd like them to be? I don't think of the genders as unequal - as indeed I don't consider people unequal.

You just can't keep yourself under control - so why even enter a debate you're so invested in?

It's of no use. Getting emotional isn't a sound tactic - and certainly not with me. I have a hard time empathizing with people who insist on fantasies and unreasonable generalization over reality, no matter how heartfelt they present themselves.

I consider your position harmful and destructive to both genders, because you're adding unnecessary fuel to the fire.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
That's your choice, obviously, but you're not going to be of much use in an exchange until you calm down and present your arguments in a rational manner.

The thing is - it is wasted. You are intelligent, but you obviously view women as inferior - you have made some very plainly sexist statements here, and your comments about the industry show a total lack of appreciation and knowledge of history and reality. All of which is fine … as I said, it is a wasted effort. I am annoyed, not angry. I am frustrated because I expected better from you.

Am I emotionally invested? Yes - I believe in equal treatment of genders. You rather clearly do not, sorry to say. You say I need to back up my points - that is like asking me to provide references to slavery or the Holocaust. They happened .. gender discrimination, particularly in the tech field, happened. Period. It is documented far and wide, and you questioning it or asking for further proof … well, again, it backs up what I said before.

Women are NOT eye candy - that is objectification, and is a very sexist statement. They are very often physically beautiful as one of their attributes, which can also include being gamers (remember that nearly half of gamers, and more than half of money spent on games, comes from women), funny, skilled in every possible area … and about as many of them are smarter than you than are less smart than you.

Originally Posted by txa1265
The thing is - it is wasted. You are intelligent, but you obviously view women as inferior - you have made some very plainly sexist statements here, and your comments about the industry show a total lack of appreciation and knowledge of history and reality. All of which is fine … as I said, it is a wasted effort. I am annoyed, not angry. I am frustrated because I expected better from you.

No, you have this fantasy that I'm sexist - because you're not listening. You're using whatever previous experience you have with what may or may not be really sexist people - and you're hearing their words coming out of my mouth. But they're not my words.

Don't expect anything. Just listen.

Am I emotionally invested? Yes - I believe in equal treatment of genders. You rather clearly do not, sorry to say. You say I need to back up my points - that is like asking me to provide references to slavery or the Holocaust. They happened .. gender discrimination, particularly in the tech field, happened. Period. It is documented far and wide, and you questioning it or asking for further proof … well, again, it backs up what I said before.

Could you point out where I'm saying there has been no discrimination?

I don't concern myself with gender, race or sexuality. I support equal treatment of all living beings - at least in principle. Unfortunately, I'm too weak and lazy to hold up my end when it comes to animals - and I'm not proud of that.

Women are NOT eye candy - that is objectification, and is a very sexist statement. They are very often physically beautiful as one of their attributes, which can also include being gamers (remember that nearly half of gamers, and more than half of money spent on games, comes from women), funny, skilled in every possible area … and about as many of them are smarter than you than are less smart than you.

No, that's your fantasy based on ignorance. You enjoy looking at women - just as you enjoy looking at a sunset. Do you think calling a sunset beautiful is discriminating against nature? Silly.

I don't concern myself with who's smarter than who - and I wouldn't know how to establish "smarts" in an overall way, either.

Could you point out where I've said they can't be smart, skilled, funny or whatever?

Why does your ignorant fantasy about what I've said have to be my problem? Couldn't you stick to what I've actually said - and keep your fantasies to yourself? I can't use them for shit, really.

BTW - I'm not saying you're angry as such. But you ARE blinded and you're not giving people a chance at all here. You're worse than many sexist men in that way, actually.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Women are NOT eye candy - that is objectification, and is a very sexist statement. They are very often physically beautiful as one of their attributes, which can also include being gamers (remember that nearly half of gamers, and more than half of money spent on games, comes from women), funny, skilled in every possible area … and about as many of them are smarter than you than are less smart than you.

In video games, there is no woman, no man. We are not talking about people here, but an assembly of pixels that is known as an avatar.

In a story oriented approach, those avatars turn into representations of men and women and they remain that. They are never people.

Avatars are objects that can be everything.

Representation of anything must be what the demand for representation call for.

Some players are not interested in the gameplay of a game and want to see things in video games that flatter their ego, going along with their representation of the world.

For what reason representations of women should be eye candy in a video game?
Avatars have no existence. It is not like seeing the picture of a woman who exists somewhere else.

Once again, it all boils down to story and representation, of what players who come to video games for something else than the gameplay want to see in a video game, how they want things to be represented.

It has nothing to do with gaming. Gaming is not concerned about gender or anything else like that.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
No, that's your fantasy based on ignorance. You enjoy looking at women - just as you enjoy looking at a sunset. Do you think calling a sunset beautiful is discriminating against nature? Silly.

People look at women when they play video games?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In what game did female mean +1 INT?

I've never heard about that - and that's discrimination.

-> Legend of Fearghail for example

A real good balanced party always consisted of men and women.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
-> Legend of Fearghail for example

A real good balanced party always consisted of men and women.

Interesting… How bold of them

There are quite a few examples of treating men and women differently in character creation and progression.

See for example the comments in this CRPG Addict article.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
There are quite a few examples of treating men and women differently in character creation and progression.

See for example the comments in this CRPG Addict article.

Oh, I know about several examples. I've just never heard about the INT example.

I seem to remember the old AD&D 2nd Edition system where women couldn't exceed 18-50 in strength, and men could achieve 18-100.

For whatever reason, dwarves couldn't get more than 18-99

IIRC, that is.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In what game did female mean +1 INT?

I've never heard about that - and that's discrimination.

Dwarves getting +2 CON is specieism I guess

Are dwarves going to petition to maintain that advantage?